revoke_session

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description must bear the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does reveal the meaningful consequence that the session stops paying on its next call, which is useful, but it does not clarify whether revocation is irreversible, idempotent, or restricted to active sessions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exceptionally short and front-loaded: the first sentence names the action and target, and the second adds a clarifying behavioral consequence. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and one consequence, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves open important details such as return values, error conditions, and idempotency. It is adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage and only the parameter name id plus its type in the schema, the description adds almost no semantic value beyond saying "by id." It fails to explain what kind of id this is (e.g., session id from list_sessions) or how the id is used.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (revoke), the target (a session), and the mechanism (by id). It also communicates the key semantic distinction from sibling tools like pay and create_session by noting the session stops paying.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_sessions or create_session. The description implies a use case but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool should be chosen.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.